Retrieve multiple managed devices by their UUIDs in one batch request. Supports up to 1000 devices per call, reducing round trips to the ESET PROTECT API.
Get multiple managed devices by UUID in one call (max recommended 100, hard limit 1000).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| devicesUuids | Yes | Device UUIDs to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a practical behavioral constraint: recommended max 100 and hard limit 1000. This is useful operational context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure; it does not mention error behavior, partial failures, rate limits, or whether the response preserves order.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the most important operational constraint (batch limits). Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter batch fetch tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the parameter, and the batch limits. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or partial-failure behavior, which an agent might need to handle batch results correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, devicesUuids, is described as 'Device UUIDs to fetch.' The description adds the batch-size limits but does not add further semantic detail about the parameter format or behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get multiple managed devices by UUID in one call'), the resource ('managed devices'), and the key differentiator ('in one call' / batch). It distinguishes itself from the single-device sibling esetprotect_get_device and the list siblings by specifying UUID-based batch retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when fetching multiple devices by UUID in a single call. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like esetprotect_get_device for single-device lookups, but the batch context and UUID parameter make the usage scenario clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.